MASTER 
NEGATIVE 

NO.  93-81195 


MICROFILMED  1993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMEN 


HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  is  not  to  be  ''used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study^  scholarship,  or 
research."  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  in  excess  of  "fair 
use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  infringement. 

This  institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  if ^  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR: 


TABER,  SYDNEY 
RICHMOND 


TITLE: 


THOUGHTS  ON 
VIVISECTION 

PLACE: 

CHICAGO 

DA  TE: 

1907 


COLUMBIA  UNIVEI^ITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


179 -li 
V.2 


Taber,  Sydney  Richmond,  1B62- 

Thoughts  on  vivisection,  by  Sydney  Richmond 
Taber;   a  reply  to  Prof.   James  Rowland  /Ingell's 
paper  entitled  "The  rejriections  of  a  layman"  in 
"The  world  today"  for  April  1907-     Chicago, 
Vivisection  reform  society,   1907# 

=ll3  p.       23  cm. 

Reprinted  from  the  Humanitarian  review  for 
October  I907. 


Vol*  of  pam- 


phlets 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE: 35_tDv]^„  REDUCTION     RATIO: ([V, 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA    @)  IB     IIB 

DATE     FILMED: S}S.^^___     INITIALS^.  U^ 

RLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT 


Association  for  informatiotii  and  image  Management 

1 1 00  Wayne  Ave  nue,  Suite  1 1 00 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


X 


Centimeter 

12        3        4         5        6 

liiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiilniiliiiiliiiiliiiil 


Mil 


iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 


8         9        10 

iiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiili 


11        12       13       14       15    mm 

liiiiliiiilniiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 


Inches 


TTT 


1 


T 


TTT 


TTT 


.0 


I.I 


1.25 


T 


TTT 


145 


2.8 


id  m 

16.3 

?■   mil  3.6 


m 


Gik.u 


1.4 


2.5 


2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


TTT 


MPNUFfiCTURED   TO   PIIM   STfiNDfiRDS 
BY   fiPPLIED   IMAGE,     INC. 


nr'^ 


%0    /Z- 


J 


THOUGHTS  ON  VIVISECTION 


BY 


SYDNEY  RICHMOND  TABER 


V 


fi 


A    Reply   to    Pnor.   James   Rowland    Angell's    Paper 

Entitled  "The  Reflections  of  a  Layman," 

IN    '*The  World   Today"  for 

April,  1907 


VIVISECTION   REFORM   SOCIETY 


53a    MONADNOCK    BlOCK- 

CHICAGO 
1907 


V 


iJ 


VIVISECTION  REFORM  SOCIETY 


PRESIDENT 

David  H.  Cochran,  Ph.  D.,  LL.D. 
Late  President  of  the  Polytechnic  Institute,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

SECRETARY  TREASURER 

Sydney  Richmond  Taber,  Alfred  Millard, 

532  Monadnock  Block,  Chicago.  U.  S.  National  Bank,  Omaha. 

DIRECTORS 

David  H.  Cochran,  Ph.D.,  LL.D Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Hon.  James  M.  Brown,  Counsellor  at  Law Toledo,  Ohio 

Titus  Munson  Coan,  M.D New  York  City 

Charles  W.  Dulles,  M.D Philadelphia 

Sydney  Richmond  Taber,  Counsellor  at  Law Chicago 

VICE-PRESIDENTS. 

His  Eminence,  Cardinal  Gibbons Baltimore 

Prof.  Goldwin  Smith,  D.C.L.,  LL.D Toronto 

Prof.  John  Bascom,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  ex-President  of  University  of 

Wisconsin Williamstown,   Mass. 

Hon.  Jacob  H.  Gallinger,  M.D.,  U.   S.  Senator Concord,  N.  H. 

Hon.  Arba  N.  Waterman,  LL.D.,  ex- Judge  of  Illinois  Appellate 

Court  C^i^^S^ 

Francis  Fisher  Browne,  Editor  of  "The  Dial" Chicago 

Edward   H.   Clement,  "Boston  Transcript" Boston 

Rt    Rev.  Alexander  Mackay-Smith,  D.D.,  S.T.D.,  Bishop  Co- 
adjutor of  Pennsylvania Philadelphia 

Henry  M.  Field,  M.D.,  late  Emeritus  Professor  of  Therapeutics, 

Dartmouth  Medical  College Pasadena,  Cal. 

Charles  W.  Dulles,  M.D.,  Lecturer  on  History  of  Medicine,  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania Philadelphia 

Alfonso  David  Rockwell,  M.D New  York  City 

Samuel  A.  Jones,  M.D Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 

Rev.  Frederic  Rowland  Marvin,  M.D Albany,  N.  Y. 

James  H.  Glass,  M.D.,  Surgeon  of  Utica  City  Hospital Utica,  N.  Y. 

Rev.  Francis  H.  Rowley,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  First  Baptist  Church ....  Boston 
Rev   Leverett  W.  Spring,  D.D.,  Professor  of  English  Literature 

in  Williams  College Williamstown,  Mass. 


Membership  Dues:    Life,  $25.00;  Annual,  $2.00. 


'^ 


[BepHnUd  from  **THfi   HUMANITARIAN   Rbjvibw"  for  Octoher,  1907. 

THOUGHTS  ON  VIVISECTION. 

BY   SYDNEY   RICHMOND   TABER. 
Secretary  of  the  Viruection  Refonn  Sodetjr. 

THERE  is  so  little  tolerance  displayed  in  the  controversy 
to  which  the  subject  of  scientific  experimentation  on 
living  animals  has  given  rise  that  it  is  refreshing  to  find  a  recent 
writer  speaking  of  "the  high-minded  and  humane  instincts  which 
inspire  the  opponents  of  vivisection."*  This  contrasts  pleasantly 
with  the  frequent  attribution  of  unworthy  motives  to  those  who 
venture  to  criticise  the  practice  in  any  way.  If  in  what  follows 
there  appears  disagreement  with  some  of  Prof.  Angell's  conclu- 
sions, this  difference  of  opinion  will  be  expressed  without  any 
wish  to  question  the  sincerity  of  a  ''high-minded  defender  of  the 
practice/'  such  as  he  has  shown  himself  to  be.  An  attempt  will 
be  made  to  follow  his  excellent  example  in  trying  "to  do  full 
justice  to  the  contentions  of  those  who  disagree  with  him." 

Prof.  Angell  adverts  to  the  argument  "that  medical  and  scien- 
tific  men   are  entirely   disagreed   among  themselves   about   the 
merits  of  the  case,  and  anti-vivisection  Hterature  is  full  of  state- 
ments from  persons  who  sign  themselves  M.  D.     Over  against 
this,"  he  says,  "is  to  be  set  the  fact  that  the  great  associations  of 
physicians  and  naturalists  have  expressed  themselves  repeatedly 
in  the  most  outspoken  way  in  defense  of  the  necessity  for  and 
the  humanitarian  character  of  vivisection  and  animal  experimen- 
tation."    But  the  difficulty  with  this  answer  lies  in  the  fact  that, 
for  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  history  of  this  controversy, 
the    testimony    of    "the    great     associations    of    physicians    and 
naturalists"  stands  discredited.     For,  in  the  first  place,  scientists 
have  repeatedly  been  convicted  of  suppressing  the  truth  about 
vivisectional  matters,  and  have  gone  to  the  length  of  suggesting 
the   false.     To  take  one   example  out  of  many  that  might  be 
cited :    Several  years  ago,  the  National  Academy  of  Science  gave 
its  unanimous  assurance  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  that 

*  "The  Reflections  of  a  Layman,  "by  James  I^owland  AngelL  Professor 
of  Physiology  in  the  University  of  Chicago,  m  "The  World  Today, 
for  April,  1907. 


i 


.■M^Ml^:,: 


1^ 


"in  modern  laboratories  anaesthetics  are  always  employed,  except 
when  the  operation  involves  less  suffering  to  the  animal  than 
the  administration  of  the  anaesthetic,  as  in  the  case  of  inoculations, 
or  in  those  instances  in  which  the  anaesthetic  would  interfere  with 
the  object  of  the  experiment."  There  is  here  an  explicit  assurance 
that  the  suffering  caused  by  inoculation  is  less  than  that  caused 
by  administering  anaesthetics.  But  medical  literature  is  full  of 
evidences  that  inoculation  produces  severe  and  prolonged  an- 
guish. 

In  his  presidential  address  before  one  of  the  sections  of  the 
British  Medical  Association,  Dr.  George  Wilson,  LL.  D.,  whose 
professional  eminence  has  gained  for  him  a  place  on  the  Royal 
Cornmission  that  is  now  investigating  the  subject  of  vivisection 
in  England,  said: 

''Whether  so-called  toxins  are  injected  under  the  skin,  into 
the  peritoneum,  into  the  cranium,  under  the  dura  mater,  into  the 
pleural  cavity,  into  the  veins,  eyes,  or  other  organs— and  all 
these  methods  are  ruthlessly  practiced — there  is  long-drawn-out 
agony.  The  animal  so  innocently  operated  on  may  have  to  live 
days,  weeks,  or  months,  with  no  anaesthetic  to  assuage  its  suf- 
ferings, and  nothing  but  death  to  relieve.'* 

Can  such  suffering  be  seriously  compared  with  the  temporary 
discomfort  involved  in  administering  an  anaesthetic  ?  And  can  it 
be  supposed  that  the  scientists  who  made  the  above  representa- 
tion were  ignorant  of  these  scientific  facts?  This  instance 
would  seem  to  furnish  an  illustration  of  another  passage  in  the 
address  above  referred  to: 

"I  have  not  allied  myself  to  the  Anti-vivisectionists,  but  I 
accuse  my  profession  of  misleading  the  public  as  to  the  cruel- 
ties and  horrors  which  are  perpetrated  on  animal  life.  When 
it  is  stated  that  the  actual  pain  involved  in  these  experiments  is 
commonly  of  the  most  trifling  description,  there  is  a  suppression 
of  the  truth,  of  the  most  palpable  kind,  which  could  only  be 
accounted  for  at  the  time  by  ignorance  of  the  actual  facts." 

In  the  second  place,  ''the  great  associations  of  physicians" 
would  be  more  readily  accepted  as  witnesses  in  regard  to  animal 
experimentation  if  their  attitude  had  been  different  from  what 
it  has  been  concerning  the  vice  of  human  vivisection.  The  leading 
medical  journals  have  repeatedly  recounted  experiments,  involv- 


I 

[ 


i 


ine  various  degrees  of  suffering,  made  upon  men  and  women- 
eenerally  hospital  patients-and  even  upon  children  and  the  m- 
sane  not  for  their  benefit  or  cure,  but  in  the  interests  of  science. 
How  have  these  disclosures  been  received  by  the  great  associa- 
tions >  By  a  silence  that  can  mean  nothing  other  than  acquies- 
cence Until  they  emphatically  rebut  the  presumption  thus  raised 
-that  these  outrages  upon  human  victims  are  condoned  and  ap- 
proved-the  public  will  naturally  receive  with  allowance  their 
outspoken  defense  of  the  humanitarian  character  of  expenmenta- 

tion  upon  animals. 

It  is  to  be  feared  that  Prof.  Angell  has,  no  doubt  unwittingly, 
given  his  readers  an  erroneous  impression  by  the  phrase  he  has 
chosen  in  speaking  of  the  physicians  who  have  expressed  anti- 
vivisection  views.    He  refers  to  them  as  "persons  who  sign  them- 
selves M   D  '•    One  unfamiliar  with  the  facts  would  be  justified 
in  understanding  that  this  class  is  entirely  composed  of  men 
who  hold  alleged  degrees  of  doubtful  authority,  or  fraudulently 
assume  the  right  to  use  the  title  mentioned ;  in  short,  that  all 
critics  of  vivisection  are  either  persons  of  no  consequence  or  else 
out-and-out  imposters.     Now,  this  is  very  far  from  the  truth 
As  a  matter  of  history,  it  was  the  medical  profession  of  Great 
Britain  that  first  denounced  the  atrocities  of  such  research,  and 
the  leading  medical  journals  of  England  for  a  score  of  years  re- 
flected the  abhorrence  felt  toward  vivisectional  excess  by  the 
great  majority  of  English  medical  men.     In  fact,  from  the  very 
beginning  of  the  agitation  to  the  present  time,  among  the  severest 
critics  of  the  practice  have  been  some  of  the  most  eminent  mem- 
bers of  the  profession  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.    The  cata- 
logue of  these  names  would  be  too  long  for  the  present  purpose, 
but  among  such  critics  mention  may  be  made  of  Sir  Charles  Bell, 
to  whom  is  attributed  the  greatest  physiological  discovery  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  who  spoke  of  some  of  his  own  experiments 
as  "cruelties"  and  doubted  whether  he  was  "authorized  in  nature 
or  religion"  to  do  them,  adding,  "And. yet,  what  are  my  experi- 
ments in  comparison  with  those  that  are  daily  done    and  are 
don    daily  for'nothing !" ;  of  Dr.  Lawson  Tait   one  of   he  mos 
distinguished  of  EngHsh  surgeons,  who  claimed  that  but  for  the 
fallacfes  of  vivisection  the  art  of  healing  would  be  today     a 
least  a  century  in  advance  of  its  present  position   ;  of  Dr.  Bell 


#. 


♦ 


Taylor,  one  of  the  leading  oculists  of  Great  Britain,  who  stated 
that  "no  good  ever  came  from  the  practice,  and  no  good  ever 
will" ;  and  of  many  others,  some  of  whom  are  named  elsewhere 
in  this  paper. 

But  perhaps  the  most  interesting  portion  of  Prof.  AngelFs 
article  is  that  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  question  as  to  how  much 
suffering  is  actually  caused  by  vivisectional  and  experimental 
methods.  By  repeated  reference  to  anaesthetics  he  paves  the  way 
for  his  conclusion  that  "the  pain  caused  to  animals  in  such  work 
is  generally  negligible  as  compared  with  that  which  they  suffer 
under  the  vicissitudes  of  life  in  a  state  of  nature."  In  this  state- 
ment and  in  the  disbelief  expressed  that  "serious  abuses  exist  in 
this  country,"  he  furnishes  an  excellent  illustration  of  that  dis- 
agreement among  scientific  men  themselves  to  which  he  had  pre- 
viously adverted. 

To  the  views  that  Prof.  Angell  expresses  may  be  opposed  a  host 
of  medical  witnesses  who,  in  speaking  of  vivisectional  experiments, 
use  such  expressions  as  "unqualifiedly  cruel,"  "most  abhorrent," 
''needless  and  cruel,"  "horror  of  vivisection,"  "inhuman,  cruel  and 
brutalizing."    Take,  for  instance,  the  testimony  of  Dr.  George  M. 
Gould,  one  of  the  leading  medical  writers  of  America,  the  founder 
and  for  many  years  editor  of  American  Medicine.  Commenting  on 
the  confession  of  a  foreign  vivisector  that  he  had  "no  regard  at 
all"  for  the  sufferings  of  the  animals  that  he  used.  Dr.  Gould  says, 
*1  am  certain  a  few  American  experimenters  feel  the  same  way 
and  act  in  accordance  with  their  feelings.    They  must  not  only  be 
silenced,  but  their  useless  and  unscientific  work  should  be  stopped. 
They  are  a  disgrace  both  to  science  and  humanity."    This  state- 
ment of  an  unquestionable  authority  deals  a  blow  to  the  comfort- 
able assurance  naturally  cherished  by  Americans  that,  whatever 
cruelties  mav  be  practiced  abroad,  serious  abuses  do  not  exist  m 
this  countrv.     And  in  line  with  this  is  the  statement  of  Prof. 
Theophilus'Parvin,  M.  D.,  LL.  D.,  for  many  years  one  of  the 
professors   at   Jefferson    Medical    College.     After    speakmg   of 

certain    vivisectors    who    "seem blind    to    the    writhmg 

agonv  and  deaf  to  the  cry  of  pain  of  their  victims,  and  who  have 
been'guiltv  of  the  most  damnable  cruelties,"  he  adds,  "These 
criminals  are  not  confined  to  Germany  or  France.  England  or 
Italy,  but  may  be  found  in  our  own  country." 


\ 


\ 


It  is  difficult  to  understand  what  is  meant  by  Professor  An- 
gell's  comparison  of  the  pain  inflicted  upon  animals  m  laborato- 
ries and  that  which  they  suffer  in  a  state  of  nature  seeing  that 
animals  used  for  vivisection  are  for  the  most  part  domestic  and 
not  wild.  Cats,  dogs,  guinea  pigs,  rabbits,  pigeons,  etc.,  un- 
doubtedly suffer,  outside  of  laboratories,  hardships  and  pain  in 
varying  degrees.  They  are  liable  to  hunger,  cold,  disease  and 
it  may  be.  to  accidents  and  wounds.  But  can  even  the  worst  o 
such  possibilities  be  seriously  compared  to  a  scientific  torture 
more  terrible  by  its  refinement  and  the  effort  to  prolong  ,t  than 

burning  at  the  stake"  ?  .  ,     ^u    i  fl  nr 

That  such  torture  is  prevalent,  we  are  assured  by  the  late  Dr 
Henry  J.  Bigelow,   Professor  of  Surgery  in  Harvard  Medical 
School  and  for  many  years  the  leading  surgeon  of  New  England. 
He  further  savs,  "Vivisection  is  not  an  innocent  study  .    .... 
It  can  be  indiscriminately  used  only  by  torturing  the  animals ; 
and  the  word  'torture'  is  here  intentionally  used  to  convey  the  idea 
of  very  severe  pain-sometimes  the  severest  conceivable  pam  of 
infinite  duration,  often  terminating,  fortunately  for  the  animal, 
with  its  life,  but  as  often  only  after  hours  or  days  of  refined  in- 
fliction, continuously  or  at  intervals.    A  man  about  to  be  burned 
under  a  railroad  car  begs  somebody  to  kill  him.    The  Hindoo 
suttee  has  been  abolished  for  its  inhumanity;  and  yet  it  is  a  state- 
ment to  be  taken  literally,  that  a  brief  death  by  burning  would  be 
considered  a  happy  release  by  a  human  being  undergoing  the  ex- 
perience of  some  of  the  animals  who  slowly  die  in  a  laboratory. 

After  dwelling  upon  these  points  of  disagreement  with  Prof. 
Angell,  it  is  a  pleasure  to  register  a  hearty  accord  with  him  in  his 
plea  for  "education  and  enlightenment  of  public  opinion    and  for 
"publicity  "     But  public  opinion  can  never  be  educated  by  the 
equivocat  on  and  misinformation  that  have  been  too  often  sanc- 
tioned by  the   great  associations  and  by  individual   scientists 
What  the  public  needs  for  enlightenment  is  the  exact  truth  about 
vivisection-the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth     As  for 
publicity,  there  surely  cannot  be  any  good  reason  why  every, 
thing  that  concerns  a  scientific  method  or  purpose  should  not  be 
plainly  and  accurately  set  forth.    Yet.  except  when  some  physio  o- 
Lt  in  a  moment  of  candor  reveals  the  secrets  of  the  laboratory, 
^  or   appalled  at  the  hideous  cruelty  that  he  has  seen,  voices  his 


J 
M. 


-   ^'■^".Utfc-  iU^rai^.  A 


•■.^sHrt^saw'**.** 


\ 


protest,  the  public  is  kept  in  ignorance  of  what  goes  on  in  the 
halls  of  science.     There  is  no  proposition  that  vivisectors  have 
so  strenuously  combated  as  the  suggestion  that  they  make  a  public 
report  of  the  number  and  nature  of  their  experiments.    So  when 
Prof.  Angell  contends  that  "publicity  is  a  far  more  efficient  remedy 
than  legislation,"  the  answer  is  that  publicity  is  impossible  with- 
out legislation.     How  can  we  secure  that  publicity  which  is  to 
prevent  abuse  ?    How  can  we  know  what  animals  and  how  many 
are  daily  sacrificed  in  laboratories  on  the  altar  of  science,  the 
purpose  for  which  the  experiment  was  made  and  the  result  at- 
tained?   Not  one  laboratory  in  America  affords  this  information. 
What,  then,  is  needed  is  the  enactment  of  a  law,  not  to  prohibit 
or  abolish,  but  one  that  shall  bring  out  all  the  facts  pertaining  to 
a   practice  which,  to  quote   Dr.   Bigelow  of   Harvard   Medical 
School,   ^'immeasurably  beyond  any  other  pursuit,  involves  the 
infliction  of  torture  to  little  or  no  purpose.     Restrictions,''  he 
savs,  "will  and  should  cut  off  the  horde  of  dull  torturers  who 
follow  in  the  wake  of  the  discoverer.    The  law  should  interfere. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  this  relation  there  exists  a  case  of 
cruelty  to  animals  far  transcending  in  its  refinement  and  in  its 
horrors  anything  that  has  been  known  in  the  history  of  nations. 
There  will  come  a  time  when  the  world  will  look  back  to  modern 
vivisection  in  the  name  of  science  as  it  now  does  to  burning  at 
the  stake  in  the  name  of  religion."  - 


FORM  OF  BEQUEST 


I  hereby  give  and  bequeath  the  sum  of 

Dollars  to  the  VIVISECTION  REFORM  SOCIETY,  a  cor- 
poration organized  and  existing  under  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  for  its  corporate  uses  and  purposes. 


i 


I 


•i 


M 


/ 


